Opps, I left out 2 references from the original post.
References
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-xmlschema-1-19991217/
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/dt4dtd
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Biron,Paul V
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 9:29 AM
> To: 'dee3@torque.pothole.com'; 'reagle@w3.org'; 'dsolo@alum.mit.edu'
> Cc: 'w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org'; 'w3c-xml-schema-ig'
> Subject: XML Schema WG response to the DSig Last Call WD
>
> The XML Schema WG thanks the XML Sig WG for the opportuity to review this
> WD.
>
> The Schema WG believes that there are no major issues with the dsig last
> call WD [1]. However, the draft schema specification(s) has undergone
> considerable change since the 1999-12-17 draft [3] on which the schema
> fragments in Section 4 "Core Signature Syntax" are based. The Schema WG
> therefore requests that the XML Sig WG rewrite all schema(s) used in
> defining dsig in terms of the schema specification current when schemas
> reaches CR.
>
> Additionally, there are several cases in which more judicious use could be
> made of Schema Datatypes. For instance, Section 4.2 "The SignatureValue
> Element" contains the actual signature octet sequence, base64 encoded--it
> is declared as a string, it should be a binary with the encoding facet
> equal to base64; Section 4.5 "The Object Element" has a MimeType
> attribute, declared as a string that could be declared as a subtype of
> string, with a pattern facet that matched all legal mime type variations.
>
> The Schema WG also suggests that the XML Sig WG consider using a mechanism
> similar to that proposed in [4] for assigning schema datatypes to
> element/attribute declarations in the dsig DTD.
>
> Lastly, the dsig WD should make clear whether the schema and DTD included
> in Section 9 are normative or informative.
>
> Paul V. Biron, on behalf of the XML Schema WG
>
> References
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xmldsig-core-20000228/